1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant 1. each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D and C were married couples of the parties, and as the couple, I (1956), the Defendant (1956), the Plaintiff (1958), the F (1962), and the J (1964).

C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on October 17, 2014.

B. The Deceased’s will 1) On July 14, 1999, the Deceased as a witness at the K Joint Law Office L/M at the K Joint Law Office and the Plaintiff’s respective real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

) In addition, in the following cases, a testamentary document was prepared with the content of testamentary gift of 139 square meters in E large 139 square meters (hereinafter “instant will”).

(2) After September 23, 2013, the Deceased prepared a testamentary document stating that he/she will testamentary gift of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant by a notary public as a witness at the Han-gu General Law Office of Law Firm (N &O).

(hereinafter referred to as “the second will of this case”)

1) On December 12, 201, the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate was completed on December 5, 201, when the ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate was completed on the grounds of donation on December 5, 2011. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 5, 2012. (2) The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate on October 20, 2014, the deceased, on October 17, 2014, on which October 20, 2014, for each of the instant real estate was deceased.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entries, 17, 24, 25, and 42, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the second will was made in a state without the deceased’s mental capacity, and the intent of the will was not received, and thus, failed to meet the requirements for a will by an authentic document.

Therefore, the second will of this case is null and void, and the transfer registration of ownership of this case completed accordingly is also null and void. Thus, the defendant is the first day of this case.